jibs-contribution-framing
GitHub针对JIBS投稿，将研究结果转化为明确的国际商务理论贡献。适用于结果已出但理论意义薄弱、被质疑增量不足或需撰写引言与讨论部分时。旨在构建非增量性主张，连接宏观背景与企业行为，并涵盖理论、实践及社会影响三重启示。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jibs-contribution-framing -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "jibs-contribution-framing",
"description": "Use when turning results into an explicit contribution to international-business theory for a Journal of International Business Studies (JIBS) manuscript — stating what the field learns about cross-border activity, why it is non-incremental, and its implications for IB theory, practice, and (per JIBS's mission) societal impact. Frames the claim; it does not run analysis (jibs-data-analysis) or position the literature (jibs-literature-positioning)."
}
Framing the IB Theoretical Contribution (jibs-contribution-framing)
When to trigger
- Results exist but the "so what for IB theory" is thin or implicit
- A reviewer says "the contribution is incremental" or "this could be a single-country management paper"
- You need explicit contribution sentences for the introduction and discussion
- You must connect a robust finding to JIBS's phenomenon-and-impact mission
The JIBS contribution bar
JIBS expects every manuscript to (a) address a real-world international-business phenomenon and (b) state explicitly what it contributes to IB theory. Incremental extensions are discouraged. A finding that merely replicates a known management relationship in a new country does not clear the bar; the contribution must change how the field understands cross-border activity, the MNE, internationalization, cross-cultural interaction, or the global political economy.
Build the contribution claim
- Name the IB theory you move. Internalization/OLI, Uppsala/process, institutional distance/voids, springboard/LLL, cross-cultural value theory, or the IB political-economy lens — state which you extend, qualify, or overturn.
- State the cross-level/cross-country insight. Make the country/culture-as-level payoff explicit: what does the field now understand about how the macro context operates on firms/individuals across borders?
- Show non-incrementality. Contrast your claim with the prevailing IB expectation and say what is surprising or boundary-shifting. Articulate the boundary conditions you establish.
- Generalize responsibly. Given your country set, state the scope of generalization — which contexts the claim travels to and which it does not. Over-generalizing beyond the sampled countries is a common reviewer flag.
Triple implications: theory, practice, and societal impact
JIBS frames IB research, under its current editorial vision, as research that should also "matter for a better world." Beyond theoretical and managerial implications, articulate societal/policy implications where warranted (e.g., for global value chains, labor, sustainability, or development). The journal's editorial structure includes a Societal Impact dimension, so a credible impact statement strengthens fit.
Write the contribution sentences
Place an explicit contribution statement in both the introduction (forward-looking) and the discussion (delivered). Each should answer: What did the IB field believe? What do we now know? Why could no single-country study have shown this?
Non-incrementality proof
Before accepting a contribution sentence, make it survive four JIBS objections:
| Objection | Required answer |
|---|---|
| "This is domestic management in another country." | Name the cross-border, comparative, institutional-distance, MNE, or global-value-chain mechanism that no single-country design could reveal. |
| "The result is a boundary condition only." | Explain why the boundary changes theory rather than merely adding a moderator. |
| "The sample is context-bound." | State the exact contexts where the claim travels and where it should not. |
| "The impact claim is decorative." | Tie societal or policy implications to the IB mechanism, not to generic managerial relevance. |
Use this proof to decide whether the paper needs a sharper IB theory move, a stronger comparative design, or a more modest scope statement. A narrow but honest IB contribution is stronger than a global claim unsupported by the country set.
Output format
【IB theory moved】extend / qualify / overturn ...
【Cross-level insight】country/culture-as-level payoff ...
【Non-incrementality】prevailing IB expectation vs. your claim ...
【Boundary conditions & scope】travels to / not to ...
【Implications】theory | practice | societal impact ...
【Contribution sentences】intro + discussion drafts ...
【Next step】jibs-tables-figures / jibs-writing-style
Anti-patterns
- "We confirm X in country Y" framed as a contribution (incremental replication).
- Leaving the IB theoretical contribution implicit in the data.
- Over-generalizing beyond the sampled countries.
- A purely managerial implications section with no theory or societal payoff.
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 13:42
